Banks

Company Overview of National City Bank

Company Overview

As of November 7, 2009, National City Bank was acquired by PNC Bank, National Association. National City Bank offers financial services. It provides corporate and small business banking, treasury management, personal banking, investment services, item processing, mortgage servicing, and insurance services. The company also offers online training services on financial and investment management, as well as provides online banking services. National City Bank has branches in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The company was founded in 1845 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. National City Bank operates as a subsidiary of PNC Bank, National Association.

1900 East Ninth Street

Locator 2101

Cleveland, OH 44114

United States

Founded in 1845

Phone:

216-575-3068

Key Executives for National City Bank

National City Bank does not have any Key Executives recorded.

National City Bank Key Developments

US Slaps National City Bank with $35 Million Fine in Lending-Discrimination Case

Dec 25 13

National City Bank charged higher prices on mortgage loans to African-American and Hispanic borrowers than similarly creditworthy white borrowers between the years 2002 and 2008. The $35 million settlement fund will be used to recompense harmed African-American and Hispanic borrowers. The bank violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) by charging more than 75,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers based on their race or national origin. In 2009, PNC Financial Services Group acquired Cleveland National City Bank, and is the successor in interest to the lender. The charges in the complaint relate solely to loans originated by the bank and do not relate to any mortgage lending practices of PNC Financial Services Group. As per the terms of the proposed settlement, PNC will reimburse $35 million into a fund for the benefit of victims of the bank's mortgage discrimination.

Court Rejects Proposed Class in Denying Approval of $7 Million Discrimination Settlement of National City Bank

Sep 15 13

On May 1, 2008, seven black and Hispanic individuals who obtained mortgage loans from National City Bank sued the bank and its parent company on behalf of themselves and similarly situated borrowers. The complaint alleged violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The plaintiffs claimed that National City had a pricing policy that gave loan officers the discretion to ad additional points, fees and credit costs to an otherwise objective financing rate. The plaintiffs contended that a minority borrower paid approximately $350 to $1,150 more for his loan than a similarly situated Caucasian borrower paid as a result of the pricing policy. The parties engaged in mediation. Ultimately, National City agreed to pay $7 million in exchange for a release of claims. The plaintiffs moved for certification of a nationwide settlement class that included 153,000 members and final approval of the settlement agreement. The district court denied the motion, finding that the commonality requirement was not met. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued the district court improperly elevated the evidentiary showing needed for certification of a settlement class. The Third Circuit rejected the notion that the district court should have conducted its commonality analysis in a manner that did not disturb the settlement. The district court did not err in requiring actual evidence to establish commonality. Settlement class is inappropriate for certification. The Third Circuit found that commonality was lacking in the proposed class. The plaintiffs did not identify a common mode in which the brokers and loan officers exercised their discretion. Even if the plaintiffs statistics, which were based on an average of national data, showed some disparities in loan prices, those disparities did not necessarily exist at every National City branch or in all regions. The Third Circuit noted the settlement of a case does not eliminate the requirement to ensure that all Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 requirements are met. The district court correctly ruled that the evidence did not show a specific practice that tied all of the thousands of claims together.

Our data partners will research the update request and update the information on this page if necessary. Research and follow-up could take several weeks. If you have questions, you can contact them at bwwebmaster@businessweek.com.